4.7 Article

Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacogenetics of Imatinib in Children and Adults

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 21, 页码 7102-7109

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0950

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the effect of several demographic, biological, and pharmacogenetic covariates on the disposition of imatinib and its main metabolite (CGP74588) in both adults and children. Experimental Design: Thirty-three children with solid malignancies included in a phase 11 exploratory study and 34 adults with gastrointestinal stromal tumors received 340 mg/m(2) and 400 mg imatinib, respectively. Plasma imatinib and CGP74588 concentrations observed on day 1 and at steady-state were analyzed by a population pharmacokinetic method (NONMEM) to evaluate the effect of age, body weight, age, sex, albuminemia, plasma alpha 1-acid glycoprotein (AGP), and eight polymorphisms corresponding to ABCB1, ABCG2, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and AGP (pharmacogenetic data available for 46 of 67 patients). Results: Analysis of the whole data set in 67 patients showed that apparent clearance (CL/F) of imatinib was positively correlated with body weight and albuminemia and negatively with AGP. By considering these three covariates, the interindividual variability on CL/F decreased from 47% to 19%. The apparent clearance of CGP74588 was similarly dependent on both body weight and AGP and significantly lower (30% reduction) at steady-state. By adding genotype status to the final covariate imatinib model, a 22% reduction in CL/F was observed in heterozygous compared with wild-type patients corresponding to ABCG2 c.421C>A (P < 0.05). Conclusions: By considering morphologic and biological covariates, a unique covariate model could be used to accurately describe imatinib pharmacokinetics in patients ages 2 to 84 years. Morphologic and biological characteristics have a stronger influence than pharmacogenetics on imatinib pharmacokinetics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据